Saturday, March 31, 2012

This is fabulous. Canadian Robert Wilson was arrested on charges of being intoxicated. Whilst in the back of the police car, he decided to voice his opposition to said charges by belting out Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody. In full. Including the instrumental solo parts. Miraculously, he remembers all of the words. Even when he is interrupted by the cop who tells him, "Robert, calm down", he continues on after telling him, "I can't." He's really committed to the bit. It's refreshing, really. I enjoy follow-through. And Bohemian Rhapsody is like almost seven minutes long. I have a hard time focusing on anything for more than a couple of seconds when I'm that plastered, let alone be able to remember the lyrics to a really long Queen song. Enjoy! (If it doesn't load, click here.)

Friday, March 30, 2012

I'm going to continue along my line of pointing out the irresponsibility of people in regard to this Trayvon Martin case that is rapidly turning into a public fiasco which is rapidly turning into a lynch mob just itching for action. Today I shall point out the incredibly irresponsible Spike Lee for his reprehensible action on Twitter the other day.

See, a lot of people are still up in arms that George Zimmerman hasn't been arrested for the killing of Trayvon Martin. Mind you, all of these people have no more facts than you and I have. None of us have any idea what went on between the two of them. But for some reason, so many people want to believe that this is nothing more than racism and a young guy was blown away just because he was black. Anyway, Spike Lee is one of these people. This is evidenced by this tweet:

And that's fine. If that's his opinion, he can tweet that all the live long day if he'd like. But that's not what has me ticked off. No, it would be the tweet that he sent out which allegedly had George Zimmerman's home address on it. Behold!

Tell me something, Spike. What were you hoping would happen to Mr. Zimmerman by putting his "home address" out there? I'm having a difficult time coming up with any scenario that does not involve vigilante justice and horrifying violence. THAT is how you think this should be handled? Allow me to reiterate: You don't know what went on! Yes, I wish that the kid hadn't been shot, but I don't have enough information to understand why he was shot. And neither does Spike Lee! But this isn't the worst of it.See, turns out that the address that he tweeted out to his at least 250,000 followers was the wrong address. The address that he tweeted out actually belonged to a couple in their seventies. And according to the Washington Post, what happened next was exactly what Spike Lee must have wanted to happen. "Menacing calls. Menacing letters. Menacing envelopes with Taste The Rainbow printed on them." Nice. Real nice. They also received "...hate mail, threats, harassing visits from reporters and fearful inquiries from neighbors." Holy crap. Look at these innocent people:

They had to leave their home because they were so afraid! I'm very thankful that nothing horrible happened to them. And given the mob mentality that people like Spike Lee seem to delight in stirring up, it might be nothing short of amazing that no one did anything terrible to them. (Not that sending letters and calling isn't terrible. You know what I mean.) And what did Spike Lee do in the aftermath of his stupidity and irresponsibility? He sent them an apology tweet.

Yes. A tweet. The tweet simply said "I Deeply Apologize To The McClain Family For Retweeting Their Address. It Was A Mistake. Please Leave The McClain's In Peace. Justice In Court." First of all, what's with the capital letters on every word? It's annoying and it seems like it would take a lot longer to type. Second, just to be pedantic, it should read "McClains", not "McClain's". Seems that grammar isn't his strong suit, either. But finally, it wasn't a mistake. The address was incorrect, but Spike Lee didn't send out that tweet by mistake. He sent it out on purpose. For him not to take responsibility for that in that manner makes me crazy. And saying he's sorry in a tweet, yeah, that'll fix everything.

For someone who seems to think that Trayvon was completely innocent in this whole matter, Spike Lee sure did manage to drag a couple of people are actually ARE completely innocent into this fiasco. The woman used to be a lunch lady and her husband has a heart condition, for crying out loud! Way to go, Spike. You jackass. Does it only go one way with you? It's OK for you to treat people the way that you did, but God forbid if a black person gets treated poorly by anyone? Is that how this works? And people wonder why there is a divide in this country. It's because people like Spike Lee do things like this to make it worse. It's like Jon Stewart said: "Yes, sending a lynch mob to the wrong address is a bad mistake. But I gotta say, even if it was the right address, that’s still a bad f***ing mistake. Sending a lynch mob to anybody’s address is bad mistake.” And that is why I love Jon Stewart and hate Spike Lee. People really need to calm their asses down here. If y'all want to protest, I suggest that you take your protests to the Sanford Police Department or the district attorney's office building. There needs to be more information given. There needs to be more explanations given. I think that's part of the anger and hostility that people have right now is that they feel that nothing has been done. And really, not much has been done. I agree. But what is lacking right now is a sense of understanding as to why nothing has been done. The sooner that information gets out there, I think the better that things will be. In the meantime, don't do stupid ass stuff like this. It only makes things worse. And if you're serious about wanting things to get better, please do things that will make things better.

Thursday, March 29, 2012

What we have here is what I would call the height of irresponsibility for a couple of members of Congress. Apparently, yesterday there were Congressional hearings about the whole Trayvon Martin ordeal. I'm not quite sure why they were holding hearings when all of the facts aren't exactly in or known. And some facts may never be known. But hey, let's hold hearings anyway and say things that are wildly irresponsible.

I'll start with a one Representative Frederica Wilson. Here is what Ms. Wilson had to say today about a subject that I cannot imagine she has some sort of secret knowledge about. "Mister Speaker, this is Trayvon Martin. Trayvon Martin's murderer is still at large. I want America to see this sweet, young boy who was hunted down like a dog." Well, then.

I'm really surprised at the kinds of things that you can get away with saying as a Congressperson. Can you call someone a murderer based upon the facts that are available to us at this time? She doesn't know any more than the rest of us know. And honestly, we don't know a lot. I have several questions about what went on that night. I'm not sure why it's taking so long for information to be released, but the longer it takes, the more likely it is that people continue making irresponsible statements like that of Ms. Wilson.

And while I'm on the subject, I have to address her "this sweet, young boy" comment. Because the media seemingly wanted to turn this into a race war, the most commonly circulated picture of Trayvon is one where he is about 13 or 14. You've probably seen this:

But have you seen this?

Or how about this one? Nice grill:

And I wouldn't want to leave out his tattoo. (Yep. 17 years old and sporting a rather large tat.)

Now, just because these photos are more representative of how Trayvon looked recently does NOT mean that he should have been shot. And maybe he was sweet. And maybe he was nice. Everyone has a good side. But these pictures do not exactly portray that of a "sweet, young boy". And I really don't appreciate the media skewing the perception of this for ratings or views or whatever the hell they're interested in these days.

You know what else I don't appreciate? Representative Hank Johnson, for one. Here's what he said about this: "He was executed for WWB in a GC. Walking while black in a gated community." Oh, for cryin' out loud. First of all, it's my understanding that he was in the gated community because his dad lived there. So black people in that community isn't a surprise. Second, it's also my understanding that Trayvon didn't live with his dad (and was only there because he was suspended from school) and therefore, wasn't known in that neighborhood. Again, I'm not saying that the kid should have been shot. I'm just saying that claiming that he was "executed" for being black is awfully disingenuous. (By the way, if the name Hank Johnson sounds familiar to you, this is the same guy who thought that Guam, an island, might one day tip over. And while that doesn't excuse his comments, it does explain a little bit. He ain't all that bright in some areas.)

Why do so many of these black folks that are speaking out think that every white person is a racist? It's like they have some sort of self-fulfilling prophecy that they really want to be true. And then they pull stuff like this and wonder why people get all upset and then attribute that to racism either. We don't not like you because you're black! No, we don't like you because you think every white person is a racist! And we're tired of it. Things happen! Horrible things, sometimes. But it doesn't mean that they're ALL because of racism or racists. So I'd really appreciate it if people would just pipe down until everything is known. Please, pipe down.

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Up until now, I have avoided the Trayvon Martin case/incident/subject. But today, I think that I am going to dip my toe in this pool of controversy. And I doubt that I'm dipping in the same pool as a lot of people. This is a completely different pool with a completely different toe. And since that analogy is starting to sound silly the more that I use it, let's just jump right in.

First of all, a whole lot of people have a whole lot of opinions. But really, I don't know that we know enough. Yes, I know that a young black guy who was unarmed was shot by an adult Hispanic male. (He's not white like the media was so quick to make him out to be when this story first came out.) That in an of itself, regardless of color, is not good. But from what I can tell, the public hasn't been told enough about the investigation that went on. That alone tells me that I don't know that I know enough to make an informed opinion. And I don't know that any of these people who act like they have an informed opinion have any more information than I do.

People seem to be all over George Zimmerman's case on this one. And I'm not necessarily saying that they shouldn't be. But shouldn't their anger be more focused (at this time) on the police and their seemingly shoddy work on this one? From what I understand, Zimmerman wasn't even taken down to the police station for questioning. I guess all of the police questioning just happened right there at the scene. I really can't imagine that. How did that go down? "Oh, so you shot him? Self defense? Well, good job, citizen! Carry on! You're free to go." That seems awfully weak at best.

My point here is this: There are only two people on this planet who know exactly what happened and one of them is dead. How we (as the public) are ever going to know for sure what happened is beyond me. Zimmerman says that the kid attacked him. And he did have injuries that were consistent with a fight. Whether or not Zimmerman provoked the kid or started the fight, we will NEVER know. Got that? We'll NEVER know.

I am astounded at how many people want this to be about race. I am seriously appalled at how many people are just jumping to conclusions and assuming that this George Zimmerman guy shot Trayvon for no reason other than that Trayvon was black and that George was a racist. There isn't enough evidence to know that or much else, for that matter. And look, I wish the kid hadn't been shot. Whether or not Zimmerman overreacted, I have no idea. I wasn't there and neither was anyone else. But if we are going to make this about race, could we make some other things about race too? If we're going to get all upset when a black kid gets shot by someone who wasn't black, can we at least get equally upset when a white kid or a Hispanic kid or even an Asian kid gets shot? (The poor Asians. They're always left out of the race wars. I wanted to be all-inclusive.)

That's it. That's me dipping my toe in this mess. Oh, but if only others could be just as cautious with their opinions before spouting off about something that they really don't have enough information about. Yeah, that's not going to happen any time soon, unfortunately. Crap. Just crap.

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

I haven't dipped my toe in the Trayvon Martin ordeal because, well, I'm kind of waiting for more facts before I make up my mind as to what my position is on this thing. Crazy, huh? Waiting until there are more concrete facts before deciding anything. Yeah, I'm wild like that. (That doesn't mean I'm totally neutral on the issue. I'd say that I'm leaning toward the shooter totally overreacting and looking for a confrontation. Regardless, a seventeen year old boy shouldn't end up shot and dying in the street.) But see, other people have been forming some pretty strong opinions about this case. One of those people is New York Senator Eric Adams. Senator Adams was on the floor of the Capitol yesterday dressed like this:

I understand the point he's trying to make, but I'm not so sure that a politician wearing a hoodie does a whole lot to dispel the idea that only criminals wear hoodies.

Monday, March 26, 2012

Just wanted to let you know that there is a cat running for the Senate in Virginia. That's right. A cat. His name's Hank. He even has a website. Hankforsenate.com. Yep. That's where we're at. I really don't know if this appalls me or if I'm totally in favor of it. I think it might be a little of both. I will cry if the cat wins, however. That would just show everyone just how far off the rails we've come if it gets to the point of electing felines to the Senate. Besides, would a cat really be any better than a person? How do we know he wouldn't just be another politician that tries to cover his s**t in the sand? Oh, wait. That's exactly what a cat does. Hmm....

Sunday, March 25, 2012

So yesterday I showed you a video made by Alexandra Pelosi (and despite her mother, Nancy Pelosi, probably being related to the devil, Alexandra seems like a charming woman) where she went to the heart of Mississippi and gathered some opinions about Obama. As you might be able to imagine, the responses were not exactly favorable (or tooth filled, in at least one instance). And as promised yesterday, here is the flip side of that. Here is Alexandra Pelosi interviewing welfare recipients in New York and getting their opinions about Obama. As you might be able to imagine, the responses were certainly more favorable than those from the south. That doesn't mean that it's going to give you a warm and fuzzy feeling all over inside. No, it will probably do quite the opposite. Regardless, here's the video. (As always, if it doesn't show up or play, click here. Enjoy!

Saturday, March 24, 2012

A little while ago, I think I had mentioned that Nancy Pelosi's daughter had made a video where she interviewed folks from Mississippi about their thoughts on the current President. I don't know exactly what the goal was, but if she was attempting to reinforce stereotypes (or at least help show how stereotypes are usually rooted in at least a little bit of fact) then she did a bang up job. And don't worry! She interviewed folks who have a better opinion of President Barry in a separate video. We'll see that one tomorrow. Today we have the toothless dissenters from the south. If it doesn't show up, click here. Behold!

Friday, March 23, 2012

I'm having issues with American Idol. Look, the show has been on how long? Eleven years or something like that. Now, as with anything, after eleven years, the popularity is expected to start to wane a bit. So if you're the producers, wouldn't you want to do whatever you could to counteract that sort of inevitable decline as much as you could? I would think so. And while I have no idea if the producers think that same thing or not, I do know that if that is their line of thinking that they are certainly going about it in a very strange manner.

See, last night, the contestants were to sing Billy Joel songs. I have nothing against Billy Joel. He's a fine musician and I enjoy many of his songs. But when was the last time he had a hit? A BIG hit? Early 90s? I thought that I heard them mention on the show that his last hit was 17 years before one of the contestants was born. And I'm not totally sure that his music has withstood the test of time. Tell me again why playing the songs of the elderly is a good idea for a pop music singing contest on television? I'm not seeing their logic.

On top of that, who do the contestants have helping them out (also known as 'mentoring', though if that's what they're doing, it's minimal mentoring at best) but none other than Diddy. Aka P Diddy. Aka Puff Daddy. Aka Sean Combs. Now, Sean Combs is a talented guy and a surprisingly good business man. (He's no Jay-Z, but he can hold his own quite well.) How did they come up with the idea of Diddy helping these kids sing Billy Joel songs? And how did they get him to agree to it? (Hey, Sean. You wanna help kids sing old man Billy Joel songs?" "Who? I mean, sure!")

Let me put this in perspective. Let's say that you're my age-ish. (I'm going to make my age-ish 40 for this discussion. Let's not talk about how old I really am, shall we?) Now let's fantasize that I was a teenager who could sing and take it back 24 years so that I'm 16 and it is now 1988. The Number One song that year was inexplicably "Need you Tonight" by INXS. "Every Rose Has Its Thorn" by Poison was Number Four. "So Emotional" by the recently departed (and constantly coked up) Whitney Houston was at Number Six. "Sweet Child o' Mine" by Guns and Roses was at Number Eleven. You get the gist. Now, if American had done then what they did last night and picked songs about thirty years older than I was at the time, I would have been expected to sing the likes of "Mule Train" by Frankie Laine and "The Hucklebuck" by Paul Williams! That's laughable to me now! And isn't that essentially what they're doing with the current American Idol contestants? It is! I just don't know why!

It'd be like if I walked out there (still playing into the fantasy that I could sing when I was a teenager) and the director said, "OK, guys. Tonight we're going to be doing the songs of Irving M. Cohen!" (If you don't get that reference, I've included a handy video below!) Or "Good news, kids! Sousa marches!" What the what?!

I don't understand what they're doing. The show isn't exactly compelling anymore. This is supposed to be a contest for the next biggest music star and they're having them sing outdated Billy Joel songs after being mentored by rapper Diddy and outfitted by sixty-year old Tommy Hilfiger. I don't get it. If I hadn't been watching Idol since the beginning, maybe I wouldn't feel so invested in it that I feel almost a duty to keep watching. But I'm really not seeing how this sort of thing is going to help.

Thursday, March 22, 2012

I am clearly doing exhaustion all wrong. I mean, first I heard about that Jason Russell guy of KONY2012 fame who was "exhausted" and ended up butt naked on a street corner with his junk flapping in the wind. And now I hear about Mike "The Situation" Sorrentino who is apparently doing rehab to kick a problem with "prescription medication use" which apparently stemmed from being exhausted. Who knew?!

According to the huffy folks over there at the Huffington Post, one of the guys who is on the inexplicably successful MTV program "Jersey Shore", Mike, has checked himself into rehab. According to the article, he is "...getting treatment for prescription medication use." Now, can't we all just assume that it's painkillers? What else would it be? I find it highly unlikely that he's hooked on penicillin or something innocuous such as that. I mean, if they're going to tell us anything at all, why don't they just tell us how it is instead of giving us bits and pieces? Because all that serves is to make them look ridiculous for thinking that we're going to buy a lame excuse.

The article goes on to say that "Mike Sorrentino says he's voluntarily seeking to "take control" of medication he was taking to deal with exhaustion." Again with someone claiming exhaustion? When I'm exhausted, I sleep. What I don't do is pop a bunch of painkillers and then head out to some happening bar at the Jersey Shore where I will likely get s***faced drunk and go home and bang some random female with bolt-on breasticles who I will never see again. Exhaustion?

I don't have a lot of respect for a lot of these people to begin with. But I would have at least a certain degree of not loathing them if they would just be up front and honest with the public that they seem to feel that they are either indebted to or who they (wrongly) think are hanging on their every move. I don't give a fat rat's ass about The Situation or any other situation. But if he's going to blow smoke up my ass, the least that he could do is make it truthful smoke.

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

For God's sake, could everyone please just pipe down about Mitt Romney's freaking dog?! The dog is long dead. How is it that I keep hearing about this dog and what may or may not have been inappropriate travel conditions for the beast? Aren't there more important issues to discuss? We have an unstable economy, outrageous gas prices, a couple of wars and unemployment that is still a bit too high. And all these yahoos want to talk about are birth control and Seamus! See how doomed we are?!

If you haven't heard the story, here it is: This happened back in the eighties. (Yes, the eighties. Yes, when Reagan was President. Yes, those eighties.) Apparently, Mitt Romney and his large family were taking a road trip somewhere. Along with the family traveled the family dog, Seamus. Seamus appears to have been some sort of Irish setter. He was definitely a dog. That I know. Anyway, for some reason, Mitt decided that the best way to go traveling with a bunch of kids and a dog would be to put the kids in the car and to put the dog on top of the car.

Now, when I first heard about this, I pictured a dog just strapped to the top of a station wagon. (You know the kind. The ones with the faux wood paneling on the outside. Whose idea were those, anyway? Why is it that someone out there wanted us to think that a car was carved out of a tree? I've never understood the reasoning behind wood paneling on things that would never be made out of wood. But I digress. Where was I? Right! The dog.) But it turns out that ol' Seamus was inside of a pet carrier crate that was strapped to the top of the family vehicle. But the way that everyone has reacted to this, you'd have thought that it was my original scenario that actually occurred.

I suppose that I should mention that the little trip that they went on was a twelve hour drive. That's pretty long. I should also mention that at some point, ol' Seamus apparently had a violent bout of diarrhea whilst he was up there. This was evidenced and noticed by the passengers of the vehicle when said diarrhea began dripping down the car windows. So gross. But why am I the only one who is thinking that it was good that the dog wasn't inside of the car when his bowels exploded? You want that IN your vehicle? While you're driving for twelve hours? When you already have five boys all under the age of thirteen in there with you? I don't think that you do.

At some point, they stopped at a gas station or a rest stop and Mitt cleaned up Seamus and hosed out his crate. Then it was back to driving with the dog on top and the people inside. Normally, this is where someone would type "The End". But it hasn't ended. It won't end. I'm afraid it may never end. People keep bringing this up as if Mitt had put one of his kids in that crate. (And let me tell you, having been a child, that would have been awesome. I would have donned a cape (aka, a pillowcase) and crawled in there for what would have been sure to be the adventure of a lifetime for a six year old!) And for some reason, the North Carolina-based Public Policy Polling decided to ask American voters questions that referenced this incident about a dog (who wasn't killed or anything) from 1983.

The Wall Street Journal had a story yesterday (almost thirty years after the freaking fact) about said poll. (How this has anything to do with Wall Street is beyond me. And people wonder why newspapers are struggling. I can't imagine.) They asked people "... whether they have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of both Barack Obama’s and Mitt Romney’s treatment of dogs". Because...that's important? It says that "20% of the 900 voters polled last week said they have a favorable opinion of Mr. Romney’s treatment of dogs, compared with 29% who hold an unfavorable opinion." The good thing about this particular result is that the percentages only total to 49%. That leaves me some hope that the other 51% said, "Are you effing kidding me?" (By the way, President Barry managed to get 44% of the people polled to see his treatment of dogs favorably, compared with only 14% who saw his dog treatment as unfavorable. How do you see President Barry as having unfavorable treatment toward dogs. Does Bo seem particularly unhappy to those folks? He's a dog who lives in the White House. I'm pretty sure that his life is rather luxurious for any animal.

But get this: They actually asked "Who do you think would be a better president for dogs?” What the crap does that even mean?! A better president for dogs? Dogs don't have presidents! They're dogs! Isn't that the sort of question that you would expect to be asked of first graders or something? How is that a polling agency's question? If you didn't think that we've totally come off the rails before now, are you thinking right about now that might be a little too optimistic? If you weren't, you should be. A better president for dogs?! Good Lord...

There is even a website called Dogs Against Romney. Now, while that's a catchy name (I suppose), I highly doubt that there are any actual dogs involved in that website. Why is this even an issue? I don't get it. How is having your dog in a dog crate on top of the car any different than having your dog in the back of your pickup truck? I'm not seeing this as a problem. The dog wasn't hurt. The dog was just fine. Probably because it's a dog. I don't know that I would recommend this as a way to travel with your animal, but I'm not seeing it as being particularly cruel or harmful. I realize that the dog has evolved into a rather domesticated beast, but it's still an animal. I think it would be OK. But the real point here is that everyone has lost their minds. Keep your eye on the ball, people! FOCUS! This is not, I repeat, NOT important! Also, let me reiterate that there is NO SUCH THING as a "president for dogs". That's NOT a thing! FOCUS, people! Keep your eye on the ball! A president for dogs?! We're so doomed.

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Maybe it's just me, but lately I feel like Homer is more and more like way too many people in real life. I'm not sure how I got here, either. I think it might have been Rick Santorum and his "war on porn" that put me over the edge. It also could have been Rick Santorum saying that the economy wouldn't be an issue in the upcoming election. Then again, there was President Barry who was blaming Fox News as the reason why so many people still think he's a secret Muslim. (He's not a secret Muslim. He's a socialist.) But are these people just that dense or are they just completely disingenuous? I don't know what it is, but The Simpsons example below pretty much sums it up for me.

Monday, March 19, 2012

I just cannot get enough of naked guy on a street corner flapping his arms like a chicken. I don't know why. I find this particular story just awesome. But I really do. And now we have close up video footage of the guy having his meltdown. Again, the reason for this was said (by his organization) to be "exhaustion and dehydration". He sure is moving around a lot for someone who is so "exhausted". I mean, I've been really tired before. I don't know if I've ever "suffered" from "exhausted", but there have been times when I've been pretty damned tired. You know what I didn't do? Every single thing that this guy did, that is correct. If it doesn't play, please click here. You won't be sorry. It's a naked meltdown at its finest.

Sunday, March 18, 2012

Remember that guy yesterday that was arrested for "publicly masturbating" even though he was butt-ass naked and standing on a busy street corner flapping his arms like a disturbed chicken in Los Angeles? What? I don't know. Maybe 5'10"? Brown hair? Yeah, HIM! Glad you're with me. OK, well, get this: The chief executive of the charity that he set up issued a statement yesterday about this latest development. He said: "Jason Russell was unfortunately hospitalized yesterday suffering from exhaustion, dehydration and malnutrition." Uhhh...what?

First of all, did you see the video? Yeah, having him in a hospital is far from unfortunate. He was standing naked at an intersection in Los Angeles. On purpose! I think that having him in a hospital is a pretty good idea. Not unfortunate at all. Necessary at the very least. How is it unfortunate to have someone who was naked on a street corner now in a hospital? Seems fine to me.

But let's look at the rest of that statement "...suffering from exhaustion, dehydration and malnutrition." Really? Listen, back in November, my 79-year old mother got extremely dehydrated and needed to be hospitalized. (Again, not unfortunate. It was better than having her not in the hospital.) You know what she didn't do? Well, she didn't strip off all of her clothes and go down to a busy intersection and start flapping her arms like a cracked out chicken! That's because that's not what happens when you're suffering from "exhaustion, dehydration and malnutrition". It's right there in the description! Exhaustion! When I'm exhausted, I don't have the energy to do much, let alone get naked and go find a busy intersection at where I will commence with my version of the Funky Chicken.

I guess his family or someone else also issued a statement saying that he wasn't under the influence of drugs or alcohol during this odd display. Why would you say that? Wouldn't you rather just go with "He was stoned out of his mind. This is not behavior that he would display as a completely sober individual. Nope. He was Gonzo. Completely sane and normal dude when he isn't wasted. But when he is, the just clothes...come off! Sorry 'bout that." That seems to be the perfect route to go. Why do these people always insist on making up stories that we all know are complete crap? Just tell us the truth. We already know and at least that way, we might end up with a shred of respect for you. Doing it this way just makes us think of you as a dumb, naked, chicken wing flapping lunatic.

Saturday, March 17, 2012

I'm guessing that by now, you've seen the Kony 2012 video that was everywhere. And if you haven't seen it, you're still not going to see it here. Don't get me wrong. That Kony guy is bad and probably needs to be shot. But I question the integrity behind the "charity" that made the video. So there's that. But there's something else, too! Yeah, the guy who made that video, a one Jason Russell, was arrested yesterday for what the media keeps calling "public masturbation". I didn't really know what that meant, but then this video appeared over at TMZ and while I think the media got the terminology wrong, the video is worth a watch. Pretty awesome to see someone who is obviously in the throes of some sort of mental snap.

Do you see what I'm saying?! In what way was that any sort of public masturbation? That was more like "stand on the corner naked and flap your arms like a chicken". I don't know if that specific instance is in the Los Angeles penal code (Heh-heh. Penal.), but I guess that it should be given this display! Holy moly. I don't even know what you'd call that (other than really freakin' weird), but it's definitely probably something that you're going to get arrested for. (Don't try this at home, kids!)

Friday, March 16, 2012

From the files of "You have got to be effing kidding me", Subsection "We're doomed" we have this little gem from FOX News about an elementary school principal in Massachusetts who decided to rename St. Patrick's Day by calling it "O'Green Day". No, I'm not kidding.

It would seem that over at the Soule Road School located in Wilbraham, MA, the principal, a one Lisa Curtin, has completely lost her mind. I say that because she is the one responsible for all of the name changing. When asked about this asinine action, she said that she "...decided to change the name to ease discomfort that some students might have in celebrating St. Patrick's Day". Wait a minute? Discomfort? For elementary school students? I understand discomfort in adults. (Have you ever drank your way through multiple twelve packs and washed them down with various fifths of several different kinds of liquor whilst being unable to make your way to an restroom due to being crammed like a sardine against other drunken revelers at your neighborhood watering hole/dive bar? Now that's discomfort.)

What sort of "discomfort" could their possibly be from "celebrating" St. Patrick's Day when you're in elementary school? Or in any other school for that matter? Then again, this same woman changed the name of Valentine's Day to "Caring and Kindness Day," according to parents with children in the school." Caring and Kindness Day?! What the hell is that?! That's not the name of it! She doesn't just get to go around changing the name of a day for whatever reason? Is nothing sacred? What if she was worried about the kids who might feel "discomfort" on particular days of the week? Is she going to change those too? Is Monday going to end up being "Happy Week Start Cotton Candy Butterfly, Unicorn and Puppy Day"? I don't get this at all.Fortunately, I'm not the only one. Parents think that it's ridiculous as well. Just to quote a few "I think it's ridiculous" and "It's really stupid." And yet it still happens. So freaking ridiculous. Tell me, did this all-enlightened principal think that it might be offensive to those who are Irish to change the name of the holiday? Of course not. One, because I doubt that would ever happen. And two, because people like this principal don't think like that. They just want everything to be neutral and have zero meaning behind it. I really wish that people had taken some time off from protesting against people that don't want women to have birth control and protested this for a little while. At least this would have been entertaining.

And that gets me to the real point of this whole thing. If you're soooooooo upset by the freaking name of something, why bother celebrating it at all? Isn't that offensive? Or wrong? (I'm really kind of grasping at straws here because I don't understand it at all. I could be missing an adjective.) Are people really that worried that someone might be offended by the name of a holiday? It's not even a very good holiday! Once you're out of the beer drinking stage and before you're in it, do you know what St. Patrick's Day looks like? Whatever day it's on! What is there to feel "discomfort" about on St. Patrick's Day?! How did that woman get to be principal?! So many questions. So few answers. Just doomed.

Thursday, March 15, 2012

A friend of mine had posted on Facebook that Sarah Palin, for some reason, said that she would be up to debating President Barry anytime and anywhere. Now, I wasn't so much aware that just regular citizens could debate the President. I didn't know that was something that we're doing now. But good for her if that's what she wants to do. Actually, I take that back. She needs to not say things like that as to not make herself look like a buffoon. And really, this is the woman who, when preparing for the Vice Presidential debate in 2008, couldn't stop herself from calling Joe Biden "Joe O'Biden". Does she really want to go up against President Barry? Because say what you will about the guy, you can't deny that he is a brilliant public speaker and would probably wipe the floor with Sarah Palin's hot little Alaskan MILF ass. But are there reasons why she should go ahead and debate him? (Hypothetically, of course, as a Palin-Obama debate is never going to happen.) Of course there are. There are at least ten. Here we go.

The Top Ten reasons that Sarah Palin should debate President Barry.

Number Ten: She'd show him a thing or two when the topic turned to snow machine racing or moose skinning.

Number Nine: Perfect opportunity to point out that none of his daughters are knocked up yet, while one of hers already accomplished that AND given birth.

Number Eight: Might finally have come up with an answer to that age old question "What do you read?"

Number Seven: Could point out Russia from her house.

Number Six: Perfect time to give Michelle Obama tips on how to improve her 'sexy librarian' look.

Number Five: It'd be a good time to finally break out her Tina Fey impersonation that she's been working on.

Number Four: Wouldn't accidentally call him "Grandpa" like she did with McCain that one time.

Number Three: Could always have a pit bull wearing lipstick stand in for her in case something came up at the last minute.

Number Two: If it was a foreign policy debate, they could have it at the International House of Pancakes in Wasilla.

And the Number One reason Sarah Palin should debate President Barry: Everyone loves a train wreck!

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

All of these women who are so up in arms about rotund blowhard Rush Limbaugh calling some chick a slut really need to calm down and set some priorities. Do you really want to give the guy any more attention that he already has on a daily basis with his incredibly large radio show audience? (Who are you people who can listen to this guy? It's just like, his opinion, man. Why would you want to sit and listen to someone pontificate about the days events in only a way as to skew it toward the point of view that he favors? I just want facts and then a discussion about the facts. Oh, throw in a little humor and we're good.) Can't they focus on real matters?

Take Ross Mirkarimi for example. Mr. Mirkarimi is the sheriff of San Francisco. See, he had been charged with multiple things like child endangerment and domestic violence after a New Year's Day kerfluffle with his wife that left her with bruised arms. Yeah, that's not cool for any dude to do, but when you're sheriff I really think that you should avoid breaking the law. Call me crazy! It's just one of those things with me.

But get this: Yesterday or the day before he pled guilty to one charge of false imprisonment and the rest of the more serious charges (including the ones that were felonies) were dropped. Shocking that the sitting sheriff would get some sort of a sweet deal, ain't it? Yeah, not quite so much. So they've got a sheriff that's been convicted of false imprisonment of his wife. And do you think he's stepping down? Uh-uh. He's just going to go about business as usual. And it's questionable (and leaning toward unlikely) if there's a legal reason for him to be booted out by the mayor or someone else. So he's going to be the sheriff! Where are all of the women protesting this S?

No where. There is a ton of public outrage because of something Rush Limbaugh simply said on his radio show. This is a guy who is violent toward women! Actual violence! Contrary to what people must believe based upon their reaction to the slut incident, we're gonna survive being called names. It's not gonna kill us. (We're not all the dainty little flowers that people like President Barry think that we are to the point that he needs to call one of us up to "see if she's OK". Please.) But being beaten up by a guy? That could kill someone! And where are the protests? Where is the outrage? Where are the women flipping out because a sheriff has been convicted of false imprisonment (of his wife) and is still planning on being sheriff?! NO where. There just aren't any.

We are a sad little country. I guess people are just so distracted by any shiny object that comes along (and when you're as big and shiny as Rush Limbaugh, I realize that it's hard to look away) that they must get blinded and unable to see it when a real issue actually does come along! The sheriff had a physical altercation with his wife that included some sort of imprisoning falsely! And he's still sheriff! Where's the outrage?! Where are the protests?! Why are you letting yourselves be distracted by Rush Limbaugh and his meaningless comments about some law school student? No one wants to take away your birth control! It's not going to happen! Just calm down and focus! What is wrong with you people?! God, we're doomed.